Re: Declarative partitioning grammar

On Jan 11, 2008, at 4:16 PM, Warren Turkal wrote:

> On Jan 11, 2008 3:42 PM, Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>  
> wrote:
>> What would be the drawbacks of
>>   CREATE TABLE tablename(...)
>>   PARTITION BY function_taking_row_returning_partition_name
>> instead of the explicit types?
>
> Would that still allow the optimizer to work as well as it could? It
> seems that an arbitrary map like that can't be optimized very well as
> it might be too general.

We did look at allowing general functions for partitioning and this  
was one concern.  The other is that we want to enforce that a row  
only gets inserted into a single partition, so we wanted a  
declarative syntax where it was relatively easy to check that range  
and list specifications don't overlap.

kind regards,

Jeff Cohen